Template talk:Sexual orientation/Archive 1

Split template?
This infobox may be too big; maybe it would be better to split into sexual orientation and homosexuality infoboxes. Rd232 22:51, 8 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't think so, since only one link on the infobox is about homosexuality, and the other two articles about the common classifications of sexual orientation are about heterosexuality and bisexuality. On the "Other classifications" the articles either have no direct link to homosexuality or it would be debatable to link them in with homosexuality, EG: Situational sexual behavior. Beno1000 14:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Transgender
Errr ... transgender is not a sexual orientiation, and should not be there. However, a link to Homosexuality and transgender would be most appropriate, since that article discusses the problems with the terms "homo-" and "heterosexuality". I'd appreciate if somebody more familiar with the ideas behind this template would correct this - otherwise I will have to. Oh, and gender identity has also little, if anything to do with sexual orientation. Gender role is also not entirely unquestionable. And military service - uhm, yes, well, that is a USA topic, but I seriously doubt it is a mayor topic for sexual orientation in general. -- AlexR 01:54, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I thought I'd start off being generous on the inclusion side, and go from there. Let's see if there any more comments before we start refining it. Rd232 10:25, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Nothing wrong with being inclusive - only that is a different thing. Now, transpeople have a sexual orientation, of course, but that isn't it. BTW, have you considered replacing "homosexual" with "gay and lesbian" or similar? See the link above for why I would consider this to be a good idea. Because this would really include transpeople, on a meaningfull level. -- AlexR 11:54, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree, but "sexual orientation" can also mean gender orientation if you interpret the sex in sexual to mean gender. ;-) --Revolución (talk) 00:02, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
 * If that is supposed to mean "orientation towards a gender (instead of a sex)" then yes, it can - but that does not change the fact that transgender (all forms) is not a sexual orientation itself. Orientation is always in relationship to another; gender identity however is the sense of self, regardless of other. -- AlexR

Two-spirit, LGB (and T)
The inclusion of "two-spirit" in the template seems odd; firstly because it is primarily/historically a term for "third gender" (and gender identity is not sexual orientation as per discussion above), and secondly because it a term specific to a small number of people in North America. If we want to include "third genders" why not put hijra, who easily number in the millions, or faafafine etc etc? The easy answer is just to remove this term from the list.

However, I want to complicate things a bit by suggesting that gender identity and sexual orientation are in fact strongly linked, and in many cultures, inseperable. Why, for instance, do we find the term "LGBT" (or LGBTI) so useful? As the page homosexuality and transgender notes, in Mangus Hirschfeld's late 19th century Germany, all who "violated heteronormative rules" were considered "third gender", and a similar group of people are now "queer" or LGBT. The re-defining of homosexuals as "normal" women who just happen to love women (and men who love men), and rejecting gender variance in the process, was for a few decades the orthodoxy of "gay lib", but it doesn't hold up for many parts of the world and many moments in history.

Which brings us back to the term "two-spirit" — according to the wikipedia article, it has been taken up by many contemporary Native American "gays, lesbians and bisexuals" as well as trans and intersex people. Think also of the Latin American "loca" (similar to western cultures' "queen") and travesti, both of whom have gender identities quite distinct from those in "the straight world". A loca commonly has a male body, dresses and acts "effeminately", refers to themself and other locas with a mix of feminine and masculine pronouns, is "passive" in sexual relations, and attracted to "real men". Are they gay and a bit trans? Where is the line between a loca and a travesti? What about their sexual partners who see themselves as real men/straight men and are also seen as real men/straight men by the wider community? Such an articifical seperation doesn't do justice to locas, or to the men they are with, who have to be inappropriately classified as "bisexual" or "MSM" in this taxonomy. Even in the US, according to historians like George Chauncey, the "queen" was the major figure in the "gay world" prior to WW2 before the straight-acting (read: gender normative) rough trade identity took off; such a sex-gender system is really widespread.

So while it is important to recognise the specific lives of transpeople in the western world and not subsume them under some broad "sexual orientation" banner, I don't want to entirely divorce gender variance from homosexuality (and marginalise transpeople in the process). The terms homo- and heterosexual have a gender identity "built in" anyway - you identify as the "same" or "different" gender to those you desire ("bisexual", on the other hand, doesn't presuppose a gender identity). The template also has "violence against LGBTs" under "attitudes to homosexuality", and if we are to strictly seperate gender identities from sexual orientation, we should remove the T - which (I'm sure we all agree) would be missing the point.

I don't have an easy solution other than perhaps renaming (or removing) the "attitudes to homosexuality" section, but I am very interested to read what others think, particularly Alex. ntennis 01:39, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Added auto
I added autosexuality, since that seems as much a valid sexual orientation as asexuality and such. Blackcats 06:21, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Additions and deletions
I would like to add Pederasty under the "general topics" header, as a pointer into what is turning out to be a rather large collection of articles on age-structured homosexuality. Is this a good location, or should it rather be placed under the Orientations category?

On a separate topic, both autosexuality and animal sexuality seem out of place here. The first is not an orientation, it is a sexual behavior engaged in by people of all orientations. The second has nothing to do with orientation, though presumably an article specifically on sexual orientation in animals might fit here. Haiduc 23:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

What is the template really about?
This template seems a little confused to me. I think it's great, but let's get the scope clear. "Sexual orientation" is defined on that page as relating to the sex(es)/gender(s) that a person is attracted to. In the case of homo and heterosexuality, this definition also depends on one's own gender identity. Unless we broaden the definition of sexual orientation, asexualilty and autosexuality don't fit, as Haiduc noted above, and we might want to add Gynophilia (Gynephilia) and Androphilia, which are at least as common as monosexuality. On the other hand, if we want to include non-gender specific orientations, then what about dominant, submissive and 'egalitarian' orientations? Shouldn't we also include a primary attraction to animals? What about non-primary orientations, fetishes, etc? Interesting but, I think, unwieldy.

The next section, "general topics", starts with biology, choice, environment, and demographics of sexual orientation. These topics fit well under the heading of sexual orientation. Then we move into the history of sex, gender role, gender identity, human sexuality, animal sexuality, and criticisms of sexual behaviour. These are, at best, related or background topics. As Alex pointed out above, a "gender identity" is not a sexual orientation. Nor, I might add, is sexual behaviour or sexual practice. Maybe these could be removed, or put in a "see also" section?

Then we have a whole section on "aspects of homosexuality", making homosexuality a privileged orientation in the template. Do we give other orientations a section too? Or just the "big three"? Further complicating the situation is that this homosexuality section is a kind of grab bag of gay, bisexual topics and transgender topics, with no guidelines for what should or shouldn't go in there. Finally, we have "religion and sexual orientation" - a nice fit for a "sexual orientation" template - and then six major religions and their relationship with "homosexuality".

It seems to me that there are two broad approaches to this confusion.
 * 1) Come clean about the covert topic of the template as it stands, and change its name to "homosexuality", "same-sex sexuality" or "LGBT", adding and removing links as appropriate. Maybe sections on "gender structured" and "age-structured" same-sex behaviour, to keep the focus global and trans-historical.
 * 2) Commit to the topic of "sexual orientation", adding and removing links as appropriate, and writing guidelines for what can be included in future.

In the interest of provoking a discussion, I propose a variant on the second option: changing the name to "sexual orientation and gender identity". I believe that the two can't be seperated in many parts of the world, and wikipedia is (or should be) a global encyclopedia. I also prefer option 2 to 1 because 1 sort of ghettoises homosexuality and transgender, whereas 2 places all sexual orientations and genders on the same footing. ntennis 02:08, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Splitting template: homosexuality and sexual orientation
I've gone with option 2 above, following Rd232's suggestion above. Here is the stuff I removed; someone may like to make a "homosexuality" template from it. ntennis 04:47, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

History &bull; Gender role &bull; Gender identity Human sexuality &bull; Animal sexuality


 * Sorry to be so rushed, but I think major branches of homosexuality should go back into a generalized template. no matter whether another dedicated one is later made. Lesbianism, and the three main forms of homosexuality are probably not too much, not too little. Haiduc 13:06, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


 * What about major branches of heterosexuality? The template is quite large already. I added Lesbian as per (part of) your suggestion but another editor, Tasc, disagreed. I encourage Tasc to elaborate on your edit summary here :) ntennis 13:43, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * let's not confuse readers. Lesbians and gays are homosexual. It's aknowledge by science and society. Anyway as was suggested early by you - they don't belong to such pared template. Perhaps, we should create homosexuality template. On the other hand, I honestly don't see where it fits. --tasc 13:47, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't object to the minimalist template, but I would like to request the person who cut out the other parts (ntennis, is that you?) to set up a "Homosexuality" template, which I'll be happy to post to the various pages. It makes sense that we should have that kind of hierarchy to these templates. Haiduc 17:27, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

CORRECTION: I suggest naming the new template "Same-sex relations" since it is far more inclusive than "homosexuality". Haiduc 17:28, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Subsets of paraphilia
Should pedophilia be given its own entry to the template, since it is a subset of paraphilia, or should they both be on the template? Beno1000 02:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I had the same thought when I saw the edit. Unfortunately this latest addition opens the door to everyone else piling on his favorite 'philia. It is obviously redundant and I'd like to request whoever added it to remove it. Haiduc 03:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I added it because someone else added zoosexuality. I guess this slippery slope stuff really does work.
 * If pedophilia is removed, zoosexuality should also be removed. JayW 20:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * For consistency, if zoosexuality is synonymous with zoophilia, it should be removed. If it is not, that is another matter. Haiduc 22:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I've proposed that the article zoosexuality be merged with zoophilia and I also think that it is unneccesary to have either pedophilia or zoophilia/zoosexuality in the template, since they are probably less common than some other paraphilias such as BDSM which are not included in the template. Beno1000 00:04, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The difference is, this is not "Template:Paraphilias". It's "Template:Sexual orientation". So far as I'm aware, nobody has proposed and researched a sexual orientation called "BDSM". By contrast significant peer reviewed studies and researches have addressed that exact question with "zoosexuality" within the field of sexology, and concluded there is a sexual orientation of that type. FT2 (Talk) 23:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Edit: Haiduc - it's not synonymous. FT2 (Talk) 23:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * [A year later] I've removed the Zoosexuality from the list, and pedophilia was already gone. They and a variety of other fetishes and paraphilias are covered under paraphilia. Those topics make for a very long list and they're not quite the same as the heterosexual-homosexual spectrum that's otherwise the focus of this template. ·:·Will Beback  ·:· 21:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * [months later] Replaced zoosexual with umbrella term paraphiliac 77.99.160.51 14:08, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Title problem
The template as it stands, applied to an article like animal sexuality, doesn't make good sense when that article is viewed. It looks odd, in that article. None the less, it is valid in the template, for people researching human sexuality. Would it make sense to rename the template "Sexuality" or "Human sexuality", since it is not all about "sexual orientation"? FT2 (Talk) 15:22, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Expanding on Kinesy scale with Klein Sexual Orientation Grid
Please also see Fritz Klein MD Thank you CyntWorkStuff 18:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * these additions have no articles so please add article first, thanks. Dbertman 18:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * stub has been added CyntWorkStuff 19:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Zoosexuality
FT2, please don't use deceptive edit summaries. You first added the link to zoosexuality on May 8. On May 9 it was removed by User:JayW. In a discussion (above) involving User:Beno1000, User:JayW and User:Haiduc, all of them expressed reservations or opposition to the inclusion of zoosexuality in the template. You reverted the removal on May 10, against consensus.

Then on June 16, User:128.192.81.11 also removed zoosexuality from this template (with the summary "beastiality is covered under paraphilia"). Today (August 3, 7 weeks later), you added zoosexuality again, writing to this anonymous editor: "If it needs reopening or reconsideration, take to talk page rather than revert what is currently at least, consensus". Where is this consensus? So far, four users (not including myself) have opposed the inclusion of zoosexuality and given reasons. You are the only editor who has ever added this link or supported its inclusion. So, please heed your own advice: ""If it needs reopening or reconsideration, take to talk page rather than revert what is currently at least, consensus".

As for the inclusion of zoosexuality, I think at the very least we need to be consistent. It appears there are two definitions of "sexual orentation" at work here:
 * The gender of the object of one's sexuality (vis-à-vis one's own gender). I.e. heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, kinsey scale, etc. This is how my dictionary defines it, and how it is usually defined in law.
 * The primary focus of one's sexuality. As well as the terms above, this could indeed also include zoosexuality — in addition to pedophilia, BDSM, gay bears, leather, rubber, chubbies or fat admirers, butch/femme, amputee fetishism, etc.

Most of the latter examples have been described as paraphilias, although personally I don't like the pathological tone of the term. However, they are also described, especially by those whose sexuality is orientated toward these practises, as sexual orientations. "BDSM, like hetero/bi/homosexuality, is a legitimate sexual orientation" "Some individuals view BDSM as their sexual orientation, like heterosexuality, homosexuality, and bisexuality. Others view it as a chosen sexual practice. In either case it needs to be respected." 

And sometimes the legal system agrees — at least in Canada :) This page describes how Peter Hayes brought a complaint against the Vancouver Police Department alleging that a VPD officer had descriminated against him because he engages in BDSM. The City of Vancouver tried to have the case tossed by the Tribunal on the basis that the claim was without merit because BDSM is not a form of "sexual orientation" as defined by the B.C. Human Rights Code. The Tribunal rejected the City's contention. The City appealed to the B.C. Supreme Court and the Supreme Court Judge dismissed the City's application. So if a supreme court judge is willing to consider BDSM a sexual orientation, it has at least as much a place here as zoosexuality.

What the editors above have expressed is that there's a slippery slope at work here. A template is limited in size, and if a group of sexualities can be included under a term like paraphilia, it may be that we have to live with it. Unless anyone has another suggestion? ntennis 02:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for discussing. This is the basis for the comment in the edit summary:
 * The article was added to the template on May 7. There was brief discussion during May 8 - 9, of which the main points were user:Haiduc's, that "if zoosexuality is synonymous with zoophilia, it should be removed. If it is not, that is another matter". I added cited evidence to the discussion that the subject had been identified as a sexual orientation by multiple researchers, and was considered such within the field of sexology research. Following this there was no further dissention, no editors significantly objected, and indeed throughout all the vandalisms of May and June 2006, no editor removed it, nor did any of the editors who reverted the vandalism remove it in passing. Your own edits of that period - and there were several of them - as well as those of other editors, left it in place as well.


 * The removal was undertaken without discussion, over a month later, by an anonymous IP (user:128.192.81.11 on June 15), on the basis that "beastiality is covered under paraphilia". Unfortunately this is inaccurate, "bestiality" is not considered a sexual orientation professionally whereas zoosexuality has been, by those who have researched the question. No discussion took place to review the discussion of May 2006 in that edit, nor had other editors expressed discontent once the initial question was answered, nor did any discussion of criteria and removal take place since May. Taken together, these are the basis for the edit summary statement that the initial edit was accepted by consensus, and removed without discussion.


 * Discussing the issues you raise, you should probably read the article on zoosexuality. To take the points you mention, sexual orientation is at the least, defined by psychologists and sexologists, who spent their academic lives studying sexuality. Their definition is likely to be significant. There is a view within these fields when zoosexuality is studied, that zoosexuality is properly considered, a sexual orientation. That seems the appropriate basis for its inclusion in the template. Sexual orientation is not the same as fetishism. If you are confusing the two then you need to check that issue first, since thats a misunderstanding. So it is not about the "primary focus" of ones sexuality". It has a specific meaning in psychology. You are correct to say that BDSM is not a form of sexual orientation. But thats the identical point I made above. No research has concluded that BDSM is. By contrast, several researchers, and other publications of repute, have stated zoosexuality is.


 * I do agree with the slippery slope issue. But thats a separate one we need to think about, and the issue there is, what are the inclusion criteria for sexual orientations in the template. As it stands, the one fact we can be sure of is that multiple specialists have identified zoosexuality as an orientation in peer-reviewed academic and psychology literature, whereas (to take an example) it seems none have identified BDSM or fetishes as such. I hope you now see why I said that there had been consensus, and why the parallels you draw in fact support its inclusion, rather than argue against it.


 * Discussion welcomed. FT2 (Talk 10:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Are you being facetious? When did i say that "BDSM is not a form of sexual orientation"? On the contrary, I said that many do consider it a sexual orientation; indeed a supreme court ruled to that effect.


 * Secondly, don't assume that silence indicates assent. If it did, you would have to conclude that the consensus is firmly against inclusion of zoosexuality — not a single editor objected to the removal of zoosexuality, for 7 weeks after it was last removed. The only person who has added or defended the link is you. This is not consensus. I do appreciate that you have left zoosexuality off the template for now while we discuss the issue. Thanks :) Perhaps we should invite the editors mentioned above to re-join the discussion?


 * You are right in wanting to defer to sexologists for a definition of the term "sexual orientation". For me, one of the most striking aspects of academic discourse on this subject is precisely how contested the term sexual orientation is! I would argue that by far the most commonly used definitions actually exclude both zoosexuality and BDSM. Here's how one article from a psychology journal puts it: "sexual orientation is erotic and/or affectional disposition to the same and/or opposite sex." (Gonsiorek JC, Sell RL, Weinrich JD., Definition and measurement of sexual orientation. Suicide & Life Threatening Behavior. 1995; 25 Supplement: 40-51.) An online glossary of sexual terms agrees: "The gender of the objects of our sexual desires." Similar definitions are predominant in current sexological and sociological research.


 * You have alluded to another definition for the term, a "specific meaning in psychology". If it differs from the one above, would you please share it with us? You claim that you "added cited evidence to the discussion", but I see no citations above. ntennis 15:09, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I can see we have some "getting off to the wrong foot" here. I've assumed good faith, and been open in discussing, and acknowledged to you that its a complex area. Thats part of how some fields are, complex and needing discussion to clarify how we as editors see them together. I hope that even if you disagree, you can see why the edits were made and that the summaries were not "deceptive" as you might have thought, and if you have read the article I named, you will have found the full cites to back the points made. If you aren't already assuming good faith, please do so, thats not a criticism, just that its not clear if you are or not, and a request that you do so, if not. I'm a bit unsure that the discussion needs the tone it has been in, given we don't actually seem to be a million miles apart over the matter. We're basically on a similar page. Anyhow.


 * Quick replies to the questions you raise. The point about BDSM not being an orientation was from your post above about the court case. I misread your point. Having re-read it I see that the point you were making was that it was agreed, not that it wasn't. My apologies for the confusion.


 * Regarding the addition/removal, the addition was discussed. People were actively involved, and then decided not to argue it further. That seems to me a stronger sign of acceptance than a removal that had not been discussed at all, since they were actively (at the start) saying the inclusion was in error, stated a condition for inclusion, were told the condition was met, and then ceased saying they objected.


 * There is a tricky issue, and you are right: How should sexual orientation be defined, and secondly, what belongs in the template. This is my thoughts, I'd value yours.


 * If one were to choose, as ones "professional definition" of sexual orientation, a statement that per definition excludes all targets of orientation except male and female human beings, then of course, it will follow that a sexual orientation is (by definition) only ever a state of interest towards a male and/or female human being. (This is a question of definition, not unlike the "gay marriage" debate. In that debate, if you define marriage as a man and a woman, then by definition two homosexuals can never be "married".) You have cited definitions that basically, hinge on "it can only be male and female humans". Such definitions may be valid, but would per definition rule out all other possibilities, including the BDSM one you mention, and its not clear if that is the consensus of those who form such views.


 * The question is whether that is actually the definition that is applicable in current society and related studies. In sexual orientation, if we choose a definition that by definition excludes all possibilities except human gender partners (the classic homo/hetero/both), then we can basically shut up shop and end this discussion here and now, because nothing else ever can meet that definition -- no other sexual orientation has ever, or can ever exist purely per definition. So the question is really, whether that definition you have cited, and more importantly the implied limits to the definition, is actually the current state of viewpoint within psychology and sexology. In other words, if we asked renowned psychologists and sexologists specializing in fringe sexuality "can a sexual orientation ever have as its object someone/something/some activity that is not either a man or a woman?" would they agree and exclude all other possible "orientations"? I don't know, but that's effectively the stance suggested by the cites you have chosen which limit it by definition to male and female human targets. Its a genuine point that we probably do need to consider.


 * Secondly, aside from that, what are we going to consider as "sexual orientation" for the purposes of the article template? From my perspective, the fact that pretty much all those who have studied zoosexuality as a sexuality since the question was raised in the field by Donofrio, have concluded that it is (or is capable of being) an orientation, and that these views are peer reviewed and published and not contested in the field, seems a good reason for us to consider it that way. My concern is that a definitional approach "It can only be male or female humans" risks ignoring the voice of those who study other sexualities and have formed their own consensus in their field.


 * Thats where I am up to and how my thinking gets there. Your thoughts, and lets discuss further -- but this time not in (what I feel to be) an initial aggressive tone. Its not needed. If the debate is good, the points covered will carry their own weight. FT2 (Talk 21:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Queer
Why isn't 'queer' listed as a sexual orientation? Bethgranter 17:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Because it isn't. See queer. 71.233.244.169 21:10, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Moving asexuality
I'm moving asexuality to "common classifications" because a human can be only attracted to the opposite gender, the same gender, both genders, or no genders (although autosexuality may deserve a place there too...). If someone feels it shouldn't be there just move it back and post here. However, note this CNN article which sources New Scientist's article on asexuality, stating that it's comparable to percentage of homosexuals. --AlexJohnc3 (talk) 03:07, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, that article itself questions the methodology of the study, and further questions whether asexuality is a sexual orientation at all. Fireplace 21:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Why would asexuality not be a sexual orientation first of all? --Alexc3 (talk) 02:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It doesn't clearly fall under the standard definition of sexual orientation . And, like I said, the CNN article even raises the question "If asexuality is indeed a form of sexual orientation..." Fireplace 21:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * So wouldn't asexuality be the lack of a sexual orientation, according the APA definition on that page? That would still make it a classification of people's sexual orientation though. I might be wrong here, so feel free to correct me. --Alexc3 (talk) 01:28, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Typology
Ok, so how come "animal sexuality" follows this strange (hi, I donèt understand the) typology that begins with "masturbation" and ends with "necrophilia"? Very odd. Someone correct this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Topher1789 (talk • contribs) 03:29, 30 September 2006 (UTC).

Against nature?
I'm really not sure why such a small and specific article is on such an otherwise general template, so I've removed it. I think it goes much better on the Non-Human Animal Sexuality page where it's linked. Tiakalla 05:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree. This is exhibition is of major importance because, although concentrating on animal behaviour, the organisers intend to point out that homosexuality is commonly found in nature - and therefore natural. Damson88 12:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It's a very specific page on a specific tangible event. Not to say it's not important, but I don't think it fits very well in a template that's otherwise entirely about general abstract psychological subjects, not specific events even if they are on said psychological subjects.  I think it fits much better linked to animal homosexuality.  Sorry about editing without discussing, though. Tiakalla 06:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Pansexuality
There may have already been a discussion on this, but might we consider adding Pansexuality to this template? --Kukini 23:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Came back to find it had been added. Thanks! -- K u k i ni  hablame aqui 14:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Autosexuality does NOT belong in the Sexual Orientation/Sexology's "Common classifications" box
Autosexuality is NOT a common sexual orientation... it belongs in the "Other classifcations" heading in the Sexual Orientation/Sexology box, not listed under the "Common classifications" heading. Autosexuality is a SUB-topical sexual orientation, most likely belonging under Asexuality - I'll let someone else do the research on that. I am a sexual creature and have no desire to research those who are not. According to the most recent sexuality research released from [| ABC News], [| CNN] and other media organizations, there are only FOUR major sexual orientations: Heterosexual, Homosexual, Bisexual and Asexual, albeit they said that Asexuals only make up 1 to 1.5% of the general poulation. Knowing those figures, how can Autosexuality be considered as common? Also, many Asexuals still have sex with themselves, so would that not make them somewhat Autosexual? Again, if Asexuals, considered one of the four major sexual orientations, make up only one percent of the population, then Autosexuals would make up a small sliver-like component of that select group which is something I liken to an analogy of the earth's atmospheric elemental components... 78% Nitrogen, 21% Oxygen, 1% Argon and then the rest is simply listed as 'other' gasses.

If you want to see unscientifically see just how common the term is... just type in any order "asexual sexual orientation" without quotes on a search engine. I did on Google and came up with 177,000 examples. Then, type in "autosexual sexual orientation" - again, in any order, not using quotation marks in the search window. On Google, I got 2,540 results or 0.01 of Asexual results. Shoot, I typed my first and last name (which is fairly uncommon) plus my city and state and produced way more results than that. That pretty much sums it all up and puts this sliver-group subtopical sexual orientation in its place, certainly not as a common classification. There are no sexuality textbooks or reference books, no published studies, no research statistics anywhere that classifies Autosexuality as a common sexual orientation. This is not in any way, shape or form meant to be an attack on someone who identifies as Autosexual, only that it does not belong in a major or common classification box on Wiki. It is generally accepted there are three or four major sexual orientation classifications, depending upon which research you adhere to, however, adding in other types as common, muddies the waters of sexuality and orientation of the LGBT community. My sexual orientation, bisexual (the 'B' in LGBT), using the same search criteria as above, produced 1,110,000 results, so that would mean Autosexual would have 0.00002 of that finding. Not so common, after all... is it? TednAZ 20:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Metrosexuality
Metrosexuality should be added. 67.87.236.82 21:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Metrosexual is not a sexual orientation. There are probably some other templates where it is more appropriate. Fireplace 22:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Concur - metrosexual is not a sexual orientation. Zue Jay (talk)  23:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Fireplace and Zuejay. Metrosexual should not be added to the template. Rhobite 22:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Homosexuality in animals
I move that Non-human animal sexual behavior be replaced with Homosexuality in animals, as some of us are trying to make the former into a general interest biology article (see the talk page there). Djcastel 16:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The Non-human animal sexual behavior link has been replaced with Homosexuality in animals, as only the latter deals specifically with sexual orientation, while the former is being re-written to have a much more general scope, per the discussion on that article's talk page. Djcastel 21:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Classifications section
Someone has put all the various terms together. However, "gay" and "lesbian" are identity labels, questioning is more of a status and homo/hetero/auto/a/bi are classifications, as in scientifically and explicitly defined ones. They should be subdivided again.~ Zythe Talk to me! 00:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. --Alexc3 (talk) 01:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree. I want to see some proof that homo/hetero/auto/a/bi are "classifications".  Also I don't think it's very useful to have piped links to identity labels such as "Straight" when they just direct to Heterosexual, for instance.  Joie de Vivre T 17:24, 7 July 2007 (UTC)